Hi, On Sat, 6 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > When calling "git fmt-patch HEAD~5", you now get the same as if you would > > have said "git fmt-patch HEAD~5..". This makes it easier for my fingers > > which are so used to the old syntax. > > While this would be easier on _my_ fingers as well, I have a > suspicion that it might make more sense to make this "single > ref" case to mean "HEAD~5^..HEAD~5" (if we _were_ designing a > new command that is called format-patch today, that would be > more natural). But probably it is too late to break it by now. No, it is not too late. I did this patch only to prevent cluttering my directory with millions of patches, only because I forgot _again_ to type the two dots. > > I wonder: would it make sense to make add_pending_object() and > > get_reference() in revision.c non-static? > > I'd rather not expose such revision.c internals too much. An > alternative approach would be to give instruction to revision.c > (read: another flag like rev.no_walk) to tell it to do something > special when the user has only one commit, but I think what you > did in your patch is cleaner and sufficient. I just stole the function add_head() from builtin-diff.c, but that feels wrong. I think adding a pending object should not be internal to revision.c. > Also we probably would want to default the diff options to show > the root commit diff (rev.show_root_diff). I gather this is needed for git-am/git-rebase to continue working? Ciao, Dscho - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html